theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm so glad you mentioned coal powered steam engine. Also not sustainable.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla
- Status
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I guess you can define “significant number of customers” any way you want.
But in rural and semi-rural parts of the country it’s a godsend, and often the only reasonable way to get high speed internet. We use it, if only until our local utility starts to provide fiber, which is supposedly coming soon.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
We're getting it at work as a backup like next week. Our DSL connection was down for a good 12 hours last week*, and since all our systems servers sit offsite, and even our phones are VOIP, it made for a very unproductive day. There is no fiber or cable option here.
*per Centurylink because of copper wire theft
I think Starlink is a really cool and useful product. And saying its just an incremental improvement over the old fashioned geosyc sat internet system is totally wrong (said upthread, not by you).
I just don't like that Musk gets to decide which allies of the US can't have it, and which enemies can. The government needs more control over it, internationally. Over domestic skies it should be purely private... unless martial law is declared of course.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The biggest probelm I see with Starlink is the very low orbit. They have to be continually replaced.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Right. I must tell my friends how they are 'not significant'.
Starlink users by country
SpaceX deploys approximately 15,000 Starlink kits to Ukranians.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Bringing commodity internet to people in a war zone seems like a pretty cool achievement
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Starlink satellites orbit at 525, 530, and 535 km. That's a bit lower than the Hubble Space Telescope at 540 km, but quite a bit higher than the International Space Station at 400 km.
The expected operational life of a Starlink satellite is five to seven years, after which time they are manually deorbited. The first deployment was in 2019, so some are now reaching the end of their useful life. So far 406 satellites out of nearly 6,000 have been deorbited.
In the long term terrestrial broadband should be able to reduce the need for satellites, but right now it's the only way to get satisfactory service to many areas. I worked on rural wireless systems in New Zealand in the 1980's. Back then just getting normal telephone service was hard. Now we have cell phone coverage over most of the country, but it doesn't perform well for internet. My friends (who are only 25 km out of town) recently got Starlink and it's much better.
Bogative
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,133
NASA: "We need to launch stuff into space, can anyone help us out? We are willing to pay money."
Space X: "Yes, we can launch your stuff into space."
NASA: "Excellent! Here's money for launching stuff into space."
MDS sufferer: "Derp. Corporate welfare! Derp."
Space X: "Yes, we can launch your stuff into space."
NASA: "Excellent! Here's money for launching stuff into space."
MDS sufferer: "Derp. Corporate welfare! Derp."
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
NASA is even paying SpaceX less than it pays other launch providers. ULA and Arianespace are both asking for government funding, just to stay in business now that SpaceX is underbidding their contracts. But somehow, in the minds of Musk-haters, SpaceX is the scam, Musk is the villain. Why aren't TGZ's panties in a bunch about Tory Bruno?
plague311
Great minds think...
This doesn't have to be true.
For this to be true.
I don't care a nit about SpaceX. I think they're a perfectly fine company. I do have issues with Starlink satellites streaking up a bunch of images of space because of the quantity and location of the satellites, but it is what it is.
That being said, Musk is an absolute piece of **** as a human and the Musk nut huggers are just as bad as those with "MDS" in that neither seem to be able to separate the man from the product.
The one company that Musk runs without any oversight at all is being run into the ******* ground. SpaceX, Tesla, and Starlink are successful companies because Musk isn't in sole authority of those companies, in my opinion. But the Musk nut huggers have him doing no wrong, including (to some extent) you. If someone doesn't recognize that it's because they're in one of those two camps.
If you can't look at Musk and say, "Man that guy is a piece of **** for the things he says, and the way he treats people, and the dangers he poses to others because of those things" then you're no better than those nay-saying him. It's two sides of the same coin.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Problem is the haters aren't just naysaying him, they are naysaying everything associated with him. And when called out on it they neither apologize nor change their attitude. Instead they either double down or move on to the next talking point as if nothing happened.
'Skeptics' used to come here to laugh at that kind of behavior, but now they're doing it themselves. Seeing supposedly intelligent caring people act like this is a real eye-opener. You say it's 'two sides of the same coin', which is true but not in the way you think. It proves that blind hatred overriding rationality is not confined to dull-minded partisans who lack the brain-power to behave reasonably, it applies equally to the 'smart' ones who think they are so superior to them.
You talk about 'the things he says, and the way he treats people, and the dangers he poses to others', but the haters have been at it from the beginning, long before they were aware of these things (if they even exist). These things aren't the reason for their hate, they are just an excuse for it.
By accusing those of us who refuse to play those games as being 'no better than' them, you are supporting them. The World needs less hatred right now, not more. Don't be one of the haters' 'useful idiots'.
Last edited:
If SpaceX is selling their launch services at a loss in order to put their competitors out of business, that would be an issue. But I don't think there is any reason to believe they are doing that. The government isn't going to let us get in the situation of having only one domestic supplier of launch services, so SpaceX wouldn't really be able to do that anyway.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Right.
I could debunk this nonsense but what's the point? You will just do the usual, and anybody who wants to know the truth can easily look it up.
What I want to know is - how did you become so blinded by hate that all semblance of rationality went out the window?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed.
Among the notable early investors is Founders Fund, led by venture capitalist Peter Thiel. In 2008, Founders Fund invested $20 million in SpaceX, securing a 10.4% stake. Fidelity Investments also played a crucial role, investing $1 billion in 2015 and acquiring a 10.2% stake. Google, through its venture capital arm Google Ventures, joined the ranks in the same year with a $1 billion investment, claiming a 7.5% share. These investments laid the financial foundation for SpaceX’s pivotal projects, facilitating the company’s transformative advancements in space technology.
Recent years have witnessed SpaceX’s ability to attract substantial capital, evident in a 2020 funding round that raised $1.9 billion, valuing the company at an impressive $46 billion. Notable participants in this round included Baillie Gifford and Valor Equity Partners, further solidifying SpaceX’s position as a magnet for strategic investment within the aerospace industry.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-a...spacex-how-much-is-the-company-worth-today-n/
Recent years have witnessed SpaceX’s ability to attract substantial capital, evident in a 2020 funding round that raised $1.9 billion, valuing the company at an impressive $46 billion. Notable participants in this round included Baillie Gifford and Valor Equity Partners, further solidifying SpaceX’s position as a magnet for strategic investment within the aerospace industry.
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-a...spacex-how-much-is-the-company-worth-today-n/
You'd think Google and Peter Thiel would notice, if Musk's numbers weren't adding up.
And I have no problem with this. Just like I have no problem with the Pentagon keeping several arms manufacturers afloat with busy-work contracts in the cycles where they don't win a major bid. It's TGZ who thinks that it's a moral failure to sustain a company on government handouts. But for some reason he's mad about SpaceX, not ULA.
plague311
Great minds think...
Thank you for quite literally proving my point. No offense, but this isn't your battle to take up. There is nothing, I repeat nothing that you won't defend Musk for. You are the epitome of not being able to separate the man from the product, and the hilited proves it. You can't even admit that Musk has said some terrible things that have caused people to be harassed and worse.
Musk isn't SpaceX. Musk isn't Tesla. Musk is X. That's who Musk is. You are the negative of a "hater" but the behavior is the same.
It does have to be true for the people who are claiming that SpaceX is a scam to be right, though. And those people have been posting in this thread. If you think they're wrong, then you and theprestige agree about this particular issue.
For what it's worth I think there are very legitimate criticisms of Musk. Sam Harris has had some good anti-Musk rants on his podcast recently that I completely agreed with, mostly relating to his behavior on twitter. I find his views in seeming support of Russia in the conflict in Ukraine reprehensible. Some of the things he's said about covid are also not just dumb, but anyone expressing views like that in public has a duty to better inform themselves about the topic than he had done. Etc.
There are legitimate, strong, criticisms of both his actions and his views.
He has also done laudable things that have added immense value to the world. There's no contradiction there. It's possible to believe both these things at once.
There are legitimate, strong, criticisms of both his actions and his views.
He has also done laudable things that have added immense value to the world. There's no contradiction there. It's possible to believe both these things at once.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,691
you give someone credit for this work by paying him for it - no additional praising required.
In contrast to that, Musk fires people willy-nilly, doesn't pay landlords, utilities or contractors or the severance payments he promised.
Before we should give Musk ANY credit for his work, he should give credit (and money) to the people who gave him his success.
In contrast to that, Musk fires people willy-nilly, doesn't pay landlords, utilities or contractors or the severance payments he promised.
Before we should give Musk ANY credit for his work, he should give credit (and money) to the people who gave him his success.
Many people claim that those companies are scams. So, I don't think we all agree that he has done both things that deserve praise and things that deserve derision. Even your phrasing doesn't admit to that: "he owns several companies that make products people like". That's quite different from "He has also done laudable things that have added immense value to the world." If you don't agree with that sentence then it's weird to reply to it with "everyone acknowledges..."
- Status